"Germany and the Germans" Topic

McLaddie

What a silly and immature post! The series contains historians and academnics on the subject, even your man Wilson is involved. Surely you can't miss the chance of hearing Wilson, since you kept spouting one of his books so often.

But perhaps you don't really want to hear anything from people who know their stuff for a change. It is very enjoyable and very informative, so go on, give yourself a treat, listen to the series. It'll do you the world of good.

Stenetoppen

Another way of looking at it, is Mcladdie sitting there staring at the blank TV screen-waitng, waiting, waiting….

Gazz, Gazz, me old mucker

McLaddie (and forgive me McLaddie for hopping into the breach when quite clearly you are more than capable of standing there your self) did not mean to cause offense (right, am i right?). Please – as they say in Norway – let's all try to see the difference between snot and moustache.

To criticise the BBC broadcast is surely OK? Yes, many names listed but the show can hardly be considered a useful source; more of a half decent, rather superficial introduction to the topic I would think. But whatever each of us thinks of the program, that opinion is surely no reason to get upset? I would say NONE of the topics and the discussions they engender here are worth getting upset about.

Posting harsh rebuffs creates sour grapes and eventually destroys the discussions, which is a real shame. Replying to real or implied or imagined insults with equal measure is surely tilting at windmills. I feel like that poor private(s) in Waterloo who in despair at the carnage shouts "why, oh why!". Stirring scene of huge emotional depth I'm sure. Let his sacrifice (of a budding acting career) be an example to us all and stop the madness.

Or call each other names and get upset at bricoles and what rules are best or whether Napoleon was a bit of a set of female pudenda or a sainted paragon of virtue and shoulda coulda woulda (but did not).

That's all fine as well. The universe moves on.

Stenetoppen

Firstly, I am not your old mucker! We are just people who post our own views and sometimes, even try to share information. Members agree or disagree with each other and some of us try to accept other people's points of view. Some however, seem incapable of doing so and invent fantasy reasoning for those disgreeing with them.

I think you mediating attempt is a bit like the HRE, not very effective. And your post should really be directed at Mcladdie, since he was silly enough to suggest that my views are based solely on the Radio series, which I think confirmed the reality that no German state existed during our period. The TV post was a bit of fun and should be taken as such.

I'm not upset. McLaddie's insult is really a very petty attempt and also suggests he has not really read the posts on both sides, which is a shame and may have prevented McLaddie from making such a fool of himself.

I just voice my viewpoint which disagrees with McLaddie's. If he can't cope with that, that's his problem, not mine.

Mcladdie

That was a pathetic attempt of an insult, suggesting I had not read anything relating to this topic. I've read material on it in the past and I have been unable to get stuck into my painting due to researching the matter recently, including reading your bible (Wilson's German Armies book), plus listening to a brilliant radio series on the topic, which I recommend. (it has Wilson on it) It also suggests that you have not read all the posts or been selective in which ones you have read.

But basically, it is down to this – you have your viewpoint, I have mine. Mine are based on many things, including material in Wilson's book.

As Wilson describes in his book, individual German states, such as Bavaria, sided with France long before the Revolutionary or Napoleonic period.

He also highlights why the paper empire (HRE) was so easily dissolved. It was past it sell-by-date and basically useless.

The two leading states, Prussia and Austria, both of which received little support from the other German speaking states in the wars against the French, were only interested in their own state, not the fatherland or a Germany.

And Wilson mentions Napoleon making treaties with individual German speaking states, not the HRE, and well before Austria's doomed war with Napoleon.

p327-'France made new treaties with Bavaria, Baden, Wurttemerg, Prussia, Hessen-Darmstadt and Mainz between July 1801 and May 1802, which, with the exception of Mainz, were followed by the movement of these territories' troops into the lands of their neighbours.'

So no wonder Francis II made a move to make sure he kept some form of title and power, which the useless HRE could not do, when he awarded himself the title Francis I of Austria-
p329-'The new title symbolized Austria's disengagement from traditional imperial politics and announced its determination to concentrate on preserving its own territorial empire. Venerable institutions like the Reichstag and the imperial courts could do little to prevent other powerful princes consolidating their own autonomy at the expense of their surviving weaker neighbours.'

And then there is Prussia-
p330-'Prussia's intervention in October 1806 was prompted not by belated pangs of German conscience but by the desperate desire to escape political isolation and prove its military worth to its Russian and British allies.'

This proves, in my opinion, that the German states did what was best for them, especially Austria and Prussia and that the whole apparatus of the Holy Roman Empire had long been nothing more than a paper empire.

Now, if you still feel that the above convinces you that a state called Germany existed, then okay, that's your choice. It convinces me of the opposite and I believe Wilson's hint at the beginning of his book that a sort of Germanic UN could be considered, is spot on. The UN today, as helpful as it tries to be, often fails to prevent things from happening, such as various states going to war with other. Exactly like the HRE.

Anyway, that's my viewpoint, If you disagree, okay, that's your choice and I accept that is your choice. I hope you can accept my viewpoint and we can all move on?

Gazz, my old m… ehm…

Mr Gazzola,

Firstly, my lack off effectiveness is well known; I am nothing if not consistent…mostly. So no harm done with that barb.

Permit me for stating that don't quite see how McLaddie was insulting you nor was being silly when he pointed out his – as I take it – surprise at the weight being accorded to the BBC show? Fair enough point I thought. Ack! There I go again. Sorry!

Back to the grindstone. That and trying to recover monies my precious offspring used by signing on to a myriad of text based services. Those companies are surely the devils work and a clear sign of the endtimes.

Happy painting!

McLaddie is it possible you have been listening to the wrong radio series?
Because the one that everybody has been recommending is the BBC radio4 one entitled 'the invention of Germany' (only 1 episode focuses on the Napoleonic era although all three episodes are relevant to the thread).
link
Stenetoppen, I fail to see why anybody would be "surprised at the weight being accorded to the BBC show?".

There is also a BBC radio3 series about Napoleon doing the rounds at the moment, which is NOT pertinent to the Germany question.

TelesticWarrior:

;-7 Actually the Big G never gave the title of the series, so I wouldn't know if I had been listening to the 'wrong one'. And I was asking about the BBC show, because G. recommended it countless times, he never once said what it was about or which one or what it might have said that was soooo meaningful.

And of course, asking was 'silly and immature.'

The continuing misconceptions are 1. that German history started with Napoleon, and 2. the rather vague notions of what a state is.

For instance, G. quotes Wilson regarding events of 1800 and after as evidence that the Reich wasn't functioning. Even though both Bravaria and Wurttemburg 'gained' their sovereignty [Wilson's words and those of politics of the time] through treaties with the Reich. Both were events engineered by Napoleon. It is rather odd to give as proof that a state hasn't been viable for a long time or non-existant when it is being actively dismantled and rebelled against.

By the same reasoning we can conclude that both Prussia and Austria were 'past their expiration dates' during the same period. Austria had it's Italian territories happily open their gates to the French, hoping for independence and the Croat military revolted, again hoping to gain independence. The Croat rebellion was put down much the same way the Rhineland rebellion was put down less than ten years before by the Reich: With troops.

Prussian cities welcomed the French in 1806 and the eastern Polish providences revolted against the Prussians more than once between 1790 and 1806. Many of those Austrian and Prussian Providences gained their independence the same way as Bravaria and Wurttemburg… by treaty and Napoleon's conquests.

Napoleon seriously considered dismantling the Prussian state
as 'old and corrupt.' I am sure the BBC series mentioned that.

TelesticWarrior

What a really feeble excuse from Mcladdie! Is he now really expecting us to believe he does not know which Radio series we were referring to? It was linked by me on the previous page of this thread and before that by 138SquadronRAF! Now I know he can't comprehend that no state called Germany existed during our period, poor man, but I'm pretty sure he has the ability to click on a link. Even the new guy, Stenetoppen (if he is a new guy) who came late to the debate, knew which one!

This suggests that McLaddie is either not reading all the posts or perhaps has some people on stifle, which would explain his continual confusion. More so, since he also believes people are suggesting that German history only began with Napoleon? How bizarre!

But he obviously loves Wilson but can't accept the idea of a Germanic UN, which Wilson hinted at on the first page of his book. Well, it seems that if he wants a state called Germany to exist, it did. Best of luck to him on that one, but he is really not worth wasting any further time debating with.

Stenetoppen

LOL! Just Gazzola or Gaz will do. And no offence taken or meant if you are a newbie?

Believe me, Mcladdie was being insulting, in the same way that he expects us to believe he did not know which Radio series to listen to. You appeared to have found it easily enough? He also accused me earlier of just reading the first 8 pages of Wilson's book, even though I had quoted pages from throughout the book. He was being insulting and he knew it. But you get used to people like him and their pathetic attempts to put people down, especially if people disagree with them.

Yes, I'm looking forward to some happy painting and some happy wargaming. And I sincerely hope you get some happy painting and wargaming in, if you have any money left after paying your sibling's bills!

Hey Gaz

I am indeed new here, or n00b as the kidzas would have. But, I have lurked here for many years but just never quite stepped in or out or on or whatever the proper form is. Glad to read that no offense was implied or taken. Allow me to add that I do think quite a few here might be a bit quick to inflate possible slights and feel the need to reply in perceived kind. Formumrage is surely another signs of the impending mayapocalypse?

Who knows. I do know it's all in our own hands and all that jazz.

I am not sure I understand – and apologies for butting in – how McLaddie can be accused of not comprehending that no state called Germany existed? I am not sure that is his claim? Or am i wrong McLaddie? Iit is in any case – to me at least – difficult to consider that McLaddie can be considered to not comprehend whereas as far as I can tell he comprehends fully the nature of the argument – but he fundamentally disagrees: and McLaddie leans his disagreement on a variety of reasons, including – but not exclusively – Wilson's book.

if I understand correctly, his position is that there was a political structure in and of what is now modern Germany or BRD, namely the HRE of the GN which – whatever its state (and there we can discuss a lot) – was certainly a state. All the infighting within and by (what essentially were) functionaries of the state including the Electoral Princes – infighting which was indeed nigh continuous – does not diminish the status of being a state. Nor was it a voluntary organisation like a UN which states chose to join – quite the reverse, the constituent territories were products of the institutions of state; leaving the Empire required rebellion or conquest.

But now I am really pinching from someone else's plate. Back to washing my own dishes instead.

Cheers!

Arjo

Stenetoppen

You seem to have the bug that long serving members sometimes have – they can't let go. A shame really, but never mind.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am not going to keep continuing with this debate, just because you have arrived late to the party and want to keep posting. I'm sorry if the topic interests you but it is now boring the hell out of me.

But the problem with McLaddie, is that he is acting as if someone is really attacking the Germans or Germany, when they are not. I love reading about the individual German states during the Napoleonic Wars. Gills books covering the Confederation of the Rhine states and the 1809 campaign are some of the best and in my collection, and his COR book is one of the best individual titles ever, in my opinion. I also love reading about the German states in other campaigns and will look forward to researching their involvement in 1813, even when they turned against Napoleon, which they could, because they were doing what they always did – what was best for them.

But if you look back at the previous posts you will see that Mcladdie likes to keep changing the goalposts. He uses terms like state, reich, nation, empire, political entity whenever it suits him, rather than just employ Holy Roman Empire – but that wouldn't sound Germanic or clever enough.

post 24th Nov-9.26am
'As there was no unified German state during the period'

Er, that's what I've been saying, so it is a puzzle that he wants to keep on arguing when he agrees with me? Yet he does? Funny that, isn't it?

post 24th Nov-9.42pm
'It is quite true that Germans of the Napoleonic era had little idea of a Unified Germany or some version of a single German state'

Again, he appears to be supporting my viewpoint, but then goes on to stress that the Germans thought of themselves as part of a Germany first, not their individual states-so he contradicts himself!

post 26th Nov 8.09pm
'and the German state'

Now he is uses the term state?

post 3rd Dec 3.37pm
'a state in every sense of the word'

Definitely considers it a state now! But er, it wasn't before?

post 6th Dec 2.38pm
'considering the existence of a 'state' called the German reich'

Here we go, from state to reich now-much more German sounding of course!

post 9th Dec 3.39pm
'but as the orginal statement was that no political entity or unified state existed before 1871. And obviously, one did'

So first he states there was no unified state and the Germans did not consider one – then there was one? And he now uses terms like 'reich' and 'political entity', as if that proves a state existed. Perhaps it does to him?

I think you can see why I no longer wish to debate with him on the topic, or with anyone else for that matter.

I see only the leftover medieval apparatus of the dead Holy Roman Empire, which is supposed to convince us of the proof of the existence of a state called Germany, or reich or nation or political entity or whatever Mcladdie wants to term it, depending on whatever mood he is in, rather than just stick to Holy Roman Empire. But a car without an engine is car without an engine – useless!

I see a region which many Germans and others refer to as Germany. But that does not make it a state. I see some people dreaming of a united Germany. But that does not make it a state either. I see a political and military struggle between Austria and Prussia to dominate a ghost empire, for themselves, not for any sense of a Germany. The fact that the Prussians went to war with their brother Germans the Austrians and Bismark wanted to destroy the German federation formed after 1815 is proof of that – in my opinion.

Anyway, that's my point of view. Accept it or reject it, that is up to you, your choice. I'm sure Mcladdie will disagree, depending on what mood he is in, of course. But I don't really care what he, you or anyone else thinks. I have my viewpoint, you have yours. I can move on. So, if you feel you really must make another post on the topic, because you can't accept my viewpoint – tough! I suggest you direct any further posts to someone else. After all, I am not the only one who has been making posts here and you never know, someone might oblige and want to continue the debate. I don't!

But if you look back at the previous posts you will see that Mcladdie likes to keep changing the goalposts. He uses terms like state, reich, nation, empire, political entity whenever it suits him, rather than just employ Holy Roman Empire – but that wouldn't sound Germanic or clever enough.

The OP used the term 'political entity', that is why posters keep using it and the debate keeps on going. To take your example, a 'UN'-type organisation is a 'political entity' but not a 'unified state'.

Howdy Gazzola or failing Gazza's absence, hey everyone!

Apologies for raking over old coal and at the risk of taking on metaphors which is an exercise of dubious worth, but…

When Gazza writes: "a car without an engine is car without an engine – useless" that may well be a fair description of the HRE / Reich but a car being useless does not transmutate it into something else. A wrecked car is not a handbag.

Why express disdain at using the name of the thing in the language used by those who used the thing the most? It does not add or diminish truthiness as such, as much as clarify the subject or is it object: the state we are discussing. Perhaps using Empire could be a source of confusion, what with all the other Empires lying around at the time. Whatever, who cares. Remember: one must always distinguish between what is snot and what is moustache!

As Whirlzy (or Mr Whirlwind if you prefer?) pointed out quite correctly, OP used the term "political entity". It is no bug that keeps me an some others coming back to that point – it is the crux of the matter at hand is it not?

Surely, there was a state that existed – until its dissolution in 1804 – in and of what we now call BRD / Federal Republic of Germany. A state recognised by its subjects and external partners and enemies alike, regardless of infighting amongst some of its most important functionaries. Whether it was in better or worse shape is another thing. There I agree we can deliberate about how much of the engine was missing or whether it just needed a good waxing and new sparkplugs. Whether its sense of national ethos was shared equally amongst all its subjects or limited to an elite is also worth discussing – but does not add or subtract from the basic essential fact: The state called the HREotGN existed. Right until it stopped doing so.

And really – why the fuss at a little disagreement about the existence of long ago states? Hardly worth the effort of taking umbrage surely. Naturally and quite rightly everyone is free to hold whatever opinion on all this oddly exciting stuff. Our loved ones only gawk in amazement as we spend hours on this. Let's not have them inflict the risks of raised bloodpressure as well.

Well – thats this post. Catch you next time Gazz – don't forget those pix! Do you use white or black undercoat?

OK – I have to confess that I have now lost count of the number of times that Gazzola has said he doesn't want to debate this anymore / everyone must move on / I have painting to do / why can't you let it go etc.
Anyone fancy offering odds that he'll be back again?
Evens? or 2-1 on?

A wrecked car is not a handbag

Is now my quote of the week.

Here's the thing about a car without an engine or a broken TV in the loft;
Both are useless but they still take up useful space.
Both things are knackered and pointless but they still get in the way and have to be dealt with at some point, even if their disposal is a largely meaningless event.
Were the comments about the HRE in the treaty of Luneville an important piece of diplomacy or more like my example of taking the TV to the scrapyard – no-one wants to do it & its not really important, but it has to be done anyway.
Bear in mind that Napoleon at this point in his career is desperate for any kind of attention from the established Monarchs who don't like him or want to engage with him diplomatically, so sticking to within the boundaries of historical protocol is a good way for the French Government to establish themselves on the European game-board.
Just a thought.

Gazzola's quip

You seem to have the bug that long serving members sometimes have – they can't let go. A shame really, but never mind.

*snort*

so much irony in that post you could make a horseshoe out of it….

btw just because a thing is useless does not mean it does not exist or serve a purpose – hereditary monarchy for one.

Yes,
but an hereditary monarchy can be useless but still serve a purpose whereas a broken TV is useless and serves no purpose whatsoever.
The issue is whether the HRE was closer in nature to the former or the latter.

ahh but there are lots of things a broken TV can be used for. doorstop, paperweight, fishbowl, mirror frame, puppet shows to name but a few.

unlike hereditary monarchies plus they can be easily replaced by any number of equally useless systems, hence they in themselves serve no purpose

Back on subject, I think that enough evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the HRE did exist and did serve a purpose. The real issue is how much and for how long and that evidence would suggest a bit, until 1806.

Seemingly also ignored the contribution of Reichstruppen fighting Revolutionary France, one has to look only at the ordre de bataille at the siege of Mayence in 1793 – Saxons, Hessen – Kassel, Bavarians, Prussians etc., etc., all fighting for the German Empire

Gustav,
Lol good points about the TV! I wouldn't be surprised if a humorous fellow like you has actually used a broken TV for a puppet show! Kinda makes me feel sad that I've thrown my old TV out now. A missed opportunity me thinks.

"I think that enough evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the HRE did exist and did serve a purpose. The real issue is how much and for how long and that evidence would suggest a bit, until 1806."
The problem is the main antagonists seem to have lost interest in the thread now, i.e. Gazzola, Brechtal plus Captain Butt & Mcladdie havent posted much either of late. With 7 pages already, its probably for the best.

By the way, after the last debate we had you may or may not be interested that another discussion about whether the Bavarian Illuminati instigated the French Revoltion has broken out on the 'Nation, state and language in Napoleonic times' thread. And without ColinJallen around to PooPoo everything this time its got quite interesting.
Everyone welcome to join in!

Difficult to declare that a hereditary monarchy is 'useless'. On the whole, modern day Constitutional Monarchies seem to be as stable and fair – if not more so – as countries run by other systems.

Stenetoppen

Forum-rage is surely another signs of the impending mayapocalypse?

Nah, a consensus on the Napoleonic Discussion forum would surely be a better sign of the impending mayapocalypse.
Join us on the 'Nation, state and language in Napoleonic times' thread if you like your history with a dollop of weird on the side.
We are also discussing signs & symbols over there, as well as the root meaning of certain words. Did you know for example that the word 'Apocolypse' doesn't mean end of the world, it means 'lifting of the veil'. So we don't need to fear the end-times, unless of course you don't like un-veilings, revelations & intellectual surprises…

TelesticWarrior

They know what we are saying and are probably arguing more for arguments sake rather than anything else. Perhaps they all own dead TV sets, so have nothing else to do?

But I've obviously rattled a few cages. Sometimes the truth does that to people – they can't just cope with someone disagreeing with them. I guess it must threaten or make them question their own viewpoints. So the best thing with that sort, is to just ignore them. It hurts their sense of self-importance.

And in terms of debating and no longer wanting to debate, which everyone is free to do, some people get the message, accept other people's points of view and look at other topics. Sadly, others appear completely incapable of doing so, which is rather sad. But live and let live I say. If they want to waste their time, that's their choice.

I felt like watching TV, but I didn't want to watch the history channels because they contain far too much of Adolf, Reich, Fatherland and all that garbage. There is enough of that rubbish here and you get tired of watching the people being conned by reich this and reich that, which were just the words of madmen. And since I didn't fancy anything else that was on, off went the telly and I got stuck into some painting. Very refreshing. Couldn't face the Westphalians so I painted up some Cossacks.

Then some enjoyable reading – and I was just getting into Incomparable by Crowdy and guess what I came across – a piece about Christain Kushmann, a Bavarian in the French army. Those flamin' Germans get everywhere, don't they! Very interesting stuff though.

Anyway, take my advice – ignore the posts. Both sides of the argument have been given and both sides are still in the same trenches, as no doubt they always will be.

BullDog69

Instead of laying odds on my return, why not lay a few odds on people actually continuing to post to me after I said I no longer want to debate the topic? What sort of people do that? Creepy! They remind me of people you meet on trains, you know the sort, you try to avoid eye contact because you know they will come and sit next to you. And even if you ignore what they are saying, they carry on. But you have to have pity on them.

Best of luck with your betting, by the way.

I knew I should have offered much shorter odds – it was a racing certainty that you'd be back.

BullDog69

People can come and go when they like. They can post or not post if they want and when they want. There are, as far as I am aware, no rules that say otherwise. Surely you know that?

But your post does raise the question as to why someone would be silly enough to suggest a bet on if I will be back, when they apparently knew I would be back? I think you are very lucky you don't actually own or run a betting shop, because you would soon be out of business, with that sort of er, 'business' sense.

Been an enjoyable debate at times. However, perhaps you could try offering odds on the debate returning in the not too distant future?

Funny. Speaking of Westphalians, I've been reading all of the memoirs I can find, of people who lived in Westphalia, especially civil servants. These just popped up today, as I'm working on a project on Westphalia:

* * *

"As a German, I believe I might nourish that re-awakening common spirit through the publication of my observations, and that I myself might be able to do my sacred duty for the fatherland…. The creation and disappearance of the Kingdom of Westphalia from among the ranks of [European] states took place in the short span of seven years. Even though the inevitable fall of the French empire was not anticipated by the French and those who adhered to their system, it was strongly desired by every man of German heart. Its continued existence had nothing to do with its constitution, but rather was tied solely to the fate of its creator."

— Wilhelm Wagener, Kassel, 1813.

* * *

"During the French oppression of Germany there were still German hearts that refused to beat in French, and that still loved and remained faithful to their Fatherland, and who remained true to their legitimate rulers…."

— Johann Friedrich Oppermann, 1815, Braunschweig. (Oppermann served as a private in the Westphalian army, from 1809 until his (very well-timed!) desertion in 1812.)

* * *

"A true German-patriotic outlook on these deeds and accomplishments I will happily indulge, that there was a wonderful convergence of circumstances that spared me from the fratricidal struggle against the liberators of our common German fatherland."

— Franz Morgenstern (a Colonel in the Westphalian army), 1814. Later – criticizing Gen. Hammerstein's decision to mutiny with his whole brigade, he adds:

"I don't feel in any way obligated to help those who were inspired by the patriotic uprising, and who felt a great common German bond deep in their souls, and who wanted to throw off the chains of foreign domination. Everybody must struggle with his own conscience."

(Note that he recognizes the patriotic German identity and the movement, but that he disapproves of Hammerstein's act.)

* * *

"One hoped for a long period of peace, counted upon Napoleon's sharp eye, and hoped that he would not underestimate the importance of reconciling with the spirit of the Germans."

— Gottfried Philipp von Bülow, a Judge for Westphalia's Oker Dept., 1808. By 1813, he writes:

"We had no doubt, that the oppressor of Germany was about to be overthrown."

* * *

"The French didn't understand the character of Germans, who are more habituated to function rather than to appearance. Had they written these ordnances in old German… if the foreign-sounding names had been given their equivalents from old Germany, everybody would have marveled at how German it all was…"

— a frustrated Karl Friedrich von Strombeck, member of King Jerome's state council, writing in his memoirs in 1833, about why Westphalia never managed to persuade Germans that it was a German state.

* * *

"It is not sufficient for everyone to speak of just German history, or the so-called imperial history… but also, if one will, the history of the German nation, as a single whole, united by a thousand years of language, constitution, custom, and culture. One must always link the specific histor(ies) with the common history of Germany, if one wishes to come to understand better the properties of the German national character and constitution."

Karl Heinrich Ludwig Pölitz, Professor of History at the U. of Halle in Westphalia (writing from Wittenberg, Saxony), 1811.

Well, I did find the BBC 3 part series on "Inventing Germany." With Gazzola propensity for multiple posting back-to-back and repetition, the only one I saw the link to the Napoleon BBC series, which didn't have much to do with this discussion. Their series on "Inventing Spain" was more applicable in understanding Germany and the German Reich.

I have always admired Misha Glenny, particularly his book on the Yugoslavian/Bosnian wars. However, for our discussion, Gazzola's description of the program is far beyond the mark: "It covers the area we now know as Germany and the Holy Roman Empire before the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period." It does no such thing.

It actually covers some aspects of the Thirty-Years War, while it completely ignores the Peace of Westphalia and everything else before the war or after, 1648 until Napoleon except for some Prussian history starting with Frederick the Great in episode 2.

The authors do note early on that all the powerless, fragmented little principalities "were under the loose authority of the Emperor," that is the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, but the causes of the war and results are not given much attention at all.

In fact, the whole focus is on what it meant to be German in 1630. I think that most all of the nations would have been hard pressed to answer what it meant to be Spanish, French, Austrian, English/British or Prussian. [In fact, the "Inventing Spain" program asks the same question of a Spaniard and gets much the same answer: ? ]

There is no doubt that Germany was fragmented and ruined by the Thirty Years War. As Misha comments, after the war, "everyone agreed that a unified Germany was a bad idea." What isn't explained is 1. Why that would be a thought at all if Germany was already so fragmented, ruined by war and had nothing to unity around the first place?, and 2. What was done by 'everyone' to keep Germany from being unitfied at the end of the war, 1648?

In a 28 minute program designed to examine Germany's condition before becoming ‘the most powerful state in Europe today', lots of important history has to be left out. In this case, more than 150 years of German and German Reich history.

To start with, the Thirty-years War was fought primarily between ‘Imperial' and ‘Protestant' forces. In this case, Imperial means the forces of the Holy Roman Emperor.
He also happened to rule Austria. It is the reason that while England and France and Spain had Kings 1500-1815, Austria had an Emperor during the same time.

Much of central Europe was controlled by the Holy Roman Emperor, with his ‘loose authority', but it is the reason that the war was principally fought across Germany and not Austria, France, Sweden or Bohemia [whose King first rebelled against the Holy Roman Emperor, starting the war.]

In the end, with the Peace of Westphalia, all the combatants concerned felt that the Holy Roman Empire was too powerful when the Austrian King sat on his throne AND the Empire's, so the Empire's authority was separated from Austria by the vote of the Empire's Electors. [More on that later] and the Peace of Westphalia.

The Empire's Diet created a constitution to that end, creating a representative government, with most traditional rights and functions intact, [Including the old German method of choosing a king, by vote] but with that separation and independence enforced. It was done so that if an Austrian, Spanish or other king was voted Emperor by the Electors, he could not join his country to the Empire as a single government… in some ways like Hungary and Austria. The Electors and the Constitution ensured it for the next 160 years, which led Prussia and Austria to continually maneuver for influence over the Empire. It was one of the reasons for the War of Austrian Succession, the question of whether a Queen could be Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire… that and the fact that the Elector of Bravaria claimed the title [The vote was split, which led into the conflict.]

Of course, none of that was mentioned in the BBC program. In fact, the way it was presented, where 1946 East Prussians refugees are told by Bravarians that they weren't German, but Polack, you'd get the idea that Germany had never been unified. Of course, to say such a thing, those Bravarians must have had a very strong opinion of what a German was. ;-7

Gazzola has made several statements about the Reich, in which he has insisted that it was ‘broken', ‘not working', ‘past its expiration date', ‘existed only on paper', ‘useless', ‘forgotten' and ‘powerless'.

As its actual expiration date was between February 9, 1801 and December of 1806, the question is whether any of those descriptions contain any substance at all.

Broken, not working and past its expiration date all imply that the German Reich wasn't functioning as it was meant to or as it had in the past. Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, I see no evidence that it wasn't working according to its constitution. In fact the Diet of 200 representatives met regularly in the Reichstag to draft laws and make policy, and had actually upped it's activity in the last forty years of its existence by not recessing or closing at all. Even Holborn agrees with this assessment in his second Volume of his German history. Whatever the Reich was, it was functioning as designed up until 1806

As Peter Wilson points out, it actually was seeing a resurgence of efficiency as a representative government in the years before 1806 and member states like Wurttemburg were championing reforms among the Diet… all following custom and constitutional processes, and as usual, Prussia and Austria weren't happy about it, even as members of the Diet.

There have been no examples given of the Reich being ‘broken' and not working the way it should in all the posts in this thread.

'Usless' suggests that whether the Reich was working or not, it had no value for its members and was really beside the point when it came to European politics. If this was the case, we would see all the many German principalities ignoring the Reich, and foreign governments doing the same. If it was useless, there would be no point in dealing with it. Again, we don't see that. Right up until 1806, the member states are providing troops as obligated, sending representatives to the Reichstag, following the laws and meeting the obligations of the Reich. Ah, but there were some states that rebelled and others that went over to the French. What about them? It is hard to understand why a state would bother to rebel against another state if it was useless unless they were under some obligation to it that they found inconvenient.

Of course, if the Reich was powerless, it would not have been able to do anything about those little states rebelling as they did in 1790-1791. Yet, the Reich collected troops, marched into those rebelling states and brought them back into the fold. It declared war on France in 1793 and provided its army, as VW points point. Hardly powerless. And of course, just because it couldn't defend itself against France doesn't negate that power… Prussia, Russia, and Austria weren't very successful at that either from 1793-1809.

So was the Reich forgotten? Hardly. The Elector of Saxony and the Elector of Bravaria couldn't forget. They were reminded every time they signed a proclamation that their title was given them by the Empire and with other Electors chose the Emperor. It was only after 1806 and the dissolution of the Reich that the Electors of Bravaria and Saxony took the title ‘King.' Even Frederick the Great's Father had to be granted permission to exchange his title of Elector of Brandenburg for that of ‘King in Prussia' and finally ‘King of Prussia.' Napoleon didn't forget the Reich. He negotiated with the Emperor and the Diet from 1800 on until he dissolved it through conquest. He didn't even forget to negotiate that with the Emperor.

The Reich certainly wasn't forgotten afterward. The Confederation of the Rhine, the German Confederation, the North German Confederation and finally the German Empire ALL followed the governmental, representative forms and constitution founded with the original Reich. No one forgot it, during its existence or after…

The arguments that the German Reich wasn't a real state because members didn't see themselves as ‘Germans', or that the many hundreds of free cities and principalities acted contrary to its laws when they wanted to, or rebelled against the Reich, or sided with some other nation against the Reich etc. etc. etc. does hold water at all. If those conditions including some lack of cultural unity and solidarity proved the Reich wasn't a state, then Austria, Prussia, Britain, France, Russia, and many others weren't state either.

There were plenty of Germans at the time who recognized ‘Germany' and themselves as Germans, just as those 1946 Bravarians did. No country has ever had ALL it's members agree on what they are culturally, let alone nationally, but that doesn't forego a sense of unity at any level. Only they can make that claim because they are the ones who lived it.

Gazzola

I agree entirely that people can come and go as they please – I am just entertained by your habit of repeatedly telling everyone you have had enough and are bored now, and have painting to do and won't be coming back… and then you do.

Why do you do that?

BullDog

I have said in the past, but you must have obviously missed it – that sometimes people leave a topic then discover someone has posted something interesting or what they might consider incorrect. They might then want to reply or rejoin the topic because of it. And sometimes, people even post something after someone has been stifled.

So what anyway? If it entertains you, stop moaning!

McLaddie

Did you spot the bit where the Radio series said Germany was a 'unified state', which you like to keep spouting-no-of course not-because there wasn't one-that's why they didn't mention it! Get it?

Did you spot the bit where they say the area now known as
Germany? They did say that because that is what the region became eventually – but not during our period!

Gazzola

When was I moaning? I enjoy it.
Indeed, I always enjoy the way you tell everyone else to move on and that you have no interest whatsoever in the debate at all any more, and then keep popping back up.

And I especially like it when you accuse others of having a 'bug' which means 'they can't let go. A shame really, but never mind'.

BullDog69

Perhaps it has something to do with people posting to me directly, even after I say I no longer want to carry on-I guess you missed that. Yes, a shame people can't move on – a bit like you really.

If people want to believe there was a state or country called Germany, because of the apparatus of the useless Holy Roman Empire was still ghosting around, okay, that's their choice. It might convince them, but it certainly does not convince me.

The HRE was not reformed after 1815, even when there was no threat to the 'Fatherland', apart from the obvious threat from Austria and Prussia, because it was useless. It was more like a Germanic UN. But the UN is not a state or country, despite all the apparatus that forms it.

During our period there were only only individual German speaking states like Bavaria, Saxony, Prussia etc, doing what they wanted and what was best for them.

There was a region which people referred to as Germany, with people who had a cultural and linguistic connection -that, as already mentioned, is a given – but the region did not become a country or state until well after our period.

If people disagree with my viewpoint, that's there choice. I disagree with those who believe or rather, want to believe, that there was a state called Germany during our period.

And life goes on.

Gazzola

Now I am intrigued as well as entertained. If – as you endlessly claim – you have decided to move on / got tired of the debate / gone off to paint your figures….. how is it you know that people have posted to you directly?

This gets more fascinating by the post and I am eagerly awaiting your explanation – so please don't pick this as the time you really do decide to do as you (repeatedly) say.

Come on Bulldog, everyone checks back on a thread that they have been heavily involved in, even if they are done with it from a posting point of view. How else would we know if our adversaries are still having a little dig at us?

Yes – I completely agree that's what most people do, but then most people just quietly stop posting without feeling the need to declare the discussion over / boring / demanding that others move on.

And then there are those who end most of their posts with the patently untrue claim that they are leaving / have had enough / want to paint figures / this will be their last post… and yet their real plan is actually to watch the thread like a hawk and leap back in again and again and again and again just to try and get the last word.

That's the bit that entertains me so Royally and I think the master of this has surpassed himself on this thread. I love it.

I'm almost tempted to unstifle Gazzola just for his entertainment value. Almost……..

Stifling is stupid.

The characters here are an important part of what makes the Napoleonic boards so good. We all have our little idiosyncrasies but it's part of the background ambiance. I've been tempted to stifle Von W a few times but his consistently predictable "Germany Good/Napoleon bad" posts have a strange charm all of their own.

Viva La Difference!

Sorry, I have you stifled as well as your oppo Gazzola.

TeleticWarrior

My advice it so ignore Matt Finish and BullDog. BullDog obviously has nothing else to do and just likes nosing in on other people's business. They're not the slightest interested in the topic. You get used to them and eventually they get bored and find their er, entertainment and enjoyment elsewhere.

But you do have to laugh at Bulldog's posts, as if when I post or not or leave, return and post has anything at all to do with him. Perhaps he is feeling left out, I don't know. Perhaps I should consider posting to him, and tell him I'm not going to post to him. leave and then return and post to him-I'm sure it will cheer him up! Pitiful, I know, and there are better ways of being entertained. But it takes all kinds, as the saying goes.

Just ignore him and also Matt Finish who is obviously a self-confessed closed-mind, which is what I consider all those who stifle. And life could be worse, you know, you could have ended up playing a wargame with them-can you imagine that! They wouldn't be interested in the game, just what you're saying. You have to been kind to these people and I think it cheers them up.

Anyway, the German debate continues. It might even pass the previous one.

"Germany Good/Napoleon bad" posts have a strange charm all of their own

mind you TW, some also get tired of some of the constant "Napoleon Wonderful / Anything Allied = Terrible" posts.

May it be a possibility that some are so rusted on to their particular bias precisely because others are so prejudicial?

Just a thought.

Sam Ali Mustafa (Captain Cornelius Butt to us), certainly seems to have a downer on the poor Westphalians.

PDF link

He likes to mention their failings as a military force, especially in 1809, and even likes to mention a good author like Gill's excellent works on the involvement of German states. But the Westphalian army was still a work in progress in 1809. And yet they still managed to put down a series of revolts, even when outnumbered, such as the one led by von Dornberg.

Dornberg even had a flag which read, in German of course 'Victory or Death in the Cause of the Nation' (Mcladdie will like the word Nation) p202-Napoleon's Satellite Kingdoms by Profesor Owen Connelly.

Connelly also describes Jerome asking his officers to choose to stay with him or join the rebels – but in Connelly's version the rebellion is not over, as Sam suggests – yet they chose to remain loyal, all of them.

And all the rebellions failed miserably and Dornberg had to do a quick runner. Dornberg thought, with the Austrians starting the 1809 campaign that it was the ideal time to start a rebellion and, like others, obviously thought the 'German' people would rise up. But they didn't. This indicates that suggestions of popular support for rebellion, in reality, might not have been that popular.

Indeed even Schill's little rebellion or raid or whatever people want to term it, was doomed right from the start-

'Although he had won a minor tactical success, the Westphalian soldiers had not deserted to him, he had been turned back from his objective and he had lost 12 officers, 70 men and numerous horses, losses that would be hard for the unsupported raiders to replace.' (p433-With eagles to Glory-John Gill)

Indeed, Connelly paints a different picture of Westphalia to our Sam, and suggests many Germans were employed within its structure. And even at the end, after the defeat at Leipzig in 1813, some Westphalians remained loyal to Jerome.

'On the evening of October 24, to applause, Jerome appeared at the theatr. Thirty six hours later, at dawn on October 26, he called together the officers of his Westphalian guards at the Napoleonshohe and offered them the chance freely to leave his service. A good part of them chose instead to march with him. This settled, he set out, escorted by both Westphalian and French guards. Some of the Westphalians considered their duty done at the kingdom's border, but most were still with him when he reached Cologne on November 1.' (page 299)

Anyway, I'm still going to paint up my Westphalian infantry and Currasiers, no matter what anyone says or thinks, especially Sam. I might even paint up a Jerome to lead them.

I was unaware that this thread was 'other people's business' – this gets better and better from the master! Can someone advise how the thread becomes part of one's business, or is that up to the Great Gazzola alone to decide?

"Perhaps I should consider posting to him, and tell him I'm not going to post to him. leave and then return and post to him-I'm sure it will cheer him up!"

No need to cheer me up – you're already doing that. At a quick count through the thread, you have already declared the topic to be over / claimed to be leaving / announced to the world that you'll not posting again 16 times (though I may have missed a couple), the first such declaration was way back on page 2, on the 21st of November.

This is magnificent stuff, even by your high standards, but perhaps in future you should look to hold a press conference to announce such things? I feel that would be a much more fitting way to declare that a thread has 'passed its bedtime' and demand that no one post on it any more.

BullDog69

My my, you do sound upset. Was it something I said?

I was amused by the terms 'master' and 'Great Gazzola' bits. You really are funny.

And no one demands anything here – they might suggest or advise – but they don't demand – do try to get something right. Your master the Great Gazzola has spoken!

Now where do you get the idea that I sound upset? I think you'll see that I clearly stated you were cheering me up and that I find your posts 'magnificent stuff'?
No ambiguity in there, old fellow – keep up the good work!

Personally I am curious as to why an example of the personal loyalty of some various Westphalian "Guard" officers negates the concept of the HRE.

"Guard" Officers being usually picked I would guess for their unswerving loyalty as opposed to ambivalence.

but hey ho all grist for the mill.